juan.lang at gmail.com
Sun Nov 16 23:13:05 CST 2008
> And now that I know that, I certainly won't be doing it again.
Thank you for your understaning.
> Well, I still have an application that won't run under wine because this
> function is not implemented. So assuming *this* patch doesn't get in,
> what can I do to help get *a* patch in that implements this function? I
> can blow away my sandbox and start from scratch, but I suspect you would
> find that insufficient. Maybe I should find a hypnotist to make me forget
> what I saw in the debugger :)
> Would it be acceptable for me to write up a description of what the
> function needs to do, so that someone else can do a clean-room
> implementation? It would probably take a reasonably experienced C/COM
> developer all of about 5 minutes, since this function is really just a
> wrapper of an already-implemented function. Is there anyone out there who
> would volunteer to do it if I were to write a description of the function?
I think that would be acceptable, yes. We have implemented things
with hints from people who've studied disassembly before. Do you have
a bug open? Sorry, I've forgotten. If not, please do open one. You
can describe your findings there.
> If I provided a patch to dlls/oleaut32/tests/olepicture.c adding tests
> that verify the behaviors of the functions, would that be accepted? Or is
> writing tests for functions you've seen the disassembly for also
In general, writing tests is okay, as they are an exercise in
black-box reverse engineering, which is what's allowed. So yeah,
tests would be great.
More information about the wine-devel